[WS:] I'd say macho and very American. Love of guns is American as flag and apple pie. They just followed the American tradition.
Here is what the Old Man says:
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
Wojtek
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> I'd say courageous and mistaken, rather than baffling.
> Actually the inspiration for the tactic was founded on a
> more benign view of the state and race relations that
> was justified. In other words, the tactic was founded on
> the hope that the law would protect legal, albeit scary
> and provocative, activity.
>
> With the benefit of hindsight, the BPP ought to have adopted
> the approach of the older Deacons for Self-Defense in the
> deep South. Arm yourself legally for protection, but don't
> parade the fact around. More like the Nation of Islam.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Max: "The deal was armed self-defense, not armed insurrection.:
>>
>> [WS:] I understand that much, even though my knowledge of the issue is
>> limited, as someone else pointed that out. But then, I do not pretend
>> to know everything, as some on this list do.
>>
>> I also understand than any social movement - call it self-defense,
>> insurrection, revolutionary party or what not - is to redress some
>> grievances and accomplish some social goals, and it deploys certain
>> strategies and tactics to achieve these goals. But what baffles me is
>> what makes otherwise intelligent people choose tactics that by a
>> rational account not only have a zero chance of success, but also a
>> very high chance of backfiring and producing effects that are opposite
>> to those sought by the movement in question.
>>
>> We can say all the good things we want about the Panthers, Weather
>> Underground, RAF, Red Brigades, etc. - but their choice of tactics is
>> baffling. I've been involved in protest movements myself, both here
>> and overseas, but it never occurred to me or anyone I was associated
>> with that shooting cops or even higher up political figures would
>> accomplish anything other than bringing more repression and destroying
>> the movement. Au contraire, many demos used the so-called "legal
>> observers" to reduce the risk of violent confrontations with the cops.
>>
>> So the mindset that produces a tactic that entails armed confrontation
>> with one of the best armed military machines in the world - or even a
>> good chance of such confrontation really baffles me. I really want to
>> know what people who do or are prepared to do such things are
>> thinking. I have a few conjectures of my own, but I'd rather hear
>> what others have to say on this.
>>
>> Wojtek
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>> > The deal was armed self-defense, not armed insurrection.
>> >
>> > Since being a gun-carrying black militant was illegal for all practical
>> > purposes, and since cops liked to shoot black men, and since the FBI was
>> out
>> > to demonize and destroy the BPP by any means available, there were a
>> batch
>> > of those incidents.
>> >
>> > Panthers were not averse to shooting police under certain circumstances,
>> but
>> > they understood the difference between that and armed insurrection.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So the following account is not true?
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Violence
>> >>
>> >> "From the beginning the Black Panther Party's focus on militancy came
>> >> with a reputation for violence. They employed a California law which
>> >> permitted carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was
>> >> publicly displayed and pointed at no one.[38] Carrying weapons openly
>> >> and making threats against police officers, for example, chants like
>> >> "The Revolution has co-ome, it's time to pick up the gu-un. Off the
>> >> pigs!",[39] helped create the Panthers' reputation as a violent
>> >> organization.
>> >>
>> >> On October 17, 1967, Oakland police officer John Frey was shot to
>> >> death in an altercation with Huey P. Newton during a traffic stop. In
>> >> the stop, Newton and backup officer Herbert Heanes also suffered
>> >> gunshot wounds. Newton was convicted of voluntary manslaughter at
>> >> trial. This incident gained the party even wider recognition by the
>> >> radical American left, and a "Free Huey" campaign ensued.[40] Newton
>> >> was released after three years, when his conviction was reversed on
>> >> appeal.
>> >>
>> >> On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal
>> >> Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the
>> >> "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms.
>> >> Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30
>> >> Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill.
>> >> The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident
>> >> which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale
>> >> and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of
>> >> disrupting a legislative session.[41]
>> >>
>> >> On April 7, 1968, Panther Bobby Hutton was killed, and Cleaver was
>> >> wounded in a shootout with the Oakland police. Each side called the
>> >> event an ambush by the other. Two policemen were shot in the
>> >> incident.[42]
>> >>
>> >> >From the fall of 1967 through the end of 1970, nine police officers
>> >> were killed and 56 were wounded, and ten Panther deaths and an unknown
>> >> number of injuries resulted from confrontations. In 1969 alone, 348
>> >> Panthers were arrested for a variety of crimes.[43] On February 18,
>> >> 1970 Albert Wayne Williams was shot by the Portland Police Bureau
>> >> outside the Black Panther party headquarters in Portland, Oregon.
>> >> Though his wounds put him in a critical condition, he made a full
>> >> recovery.[44]"
>> >>
>> >> end-quote
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Dennis Claxton <
>> ddclaxton at earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > At 11:56 AM 10/28/2010, Wojtek S wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I do not want to split hair, but they did not stand a chance -
>> >> >> cointelpro or not. No armed insurrection in the US stands a chance.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > To call the Panthers an armed insurrection is to miss what they were
>> >> about.
>> >> > As is comparing them to the Red Brigades.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ___________________________________
>> >> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ___________________________________
>> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >>
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>